Female leg hair

[RamynKing]

I don't understand disgust about hairy legs on women. Someone please fill me in?

Didn't the trend of shaving come along with the modern paradigm of degeneracy?

Serious question! My wife let's hers grow after I said i see nothing wrong with it. But she gets so much ridicule from leftists and rightists. Why?

[Jsbrads]

I don't see leg hair unattractive, but when I notice a smooth shaved leg it is attracting to my eye. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I guess the same reason some guys don't like female pubic or facial hair? Some genetic reason that rationalizes it all?

It's amusing how topics here can range from life-and-death end-of-the-world discussions to...friggen kinks. 

That being said it certainly caught my attention as a unique post. Even if irrelevant intellectually since I figure "genetics" and "childhood"  is the cop-out that accurately answers all the reasons why we prefer certain things. Like clean bodies for women, hairy bodies for men. 

[shirgall]

Females shave body hair for the same reason they wear makeup, to look younger and more fertile. The cultural reinforcement of this is long-standing.

[RamynKing]

I think its a little different than makeup.

Makeup covers the obvious facial things that come with aging. If an older woman shaves her legs she might actually reveal veins, so thats odd.

A young woman has little need for makeup, some may put on a little for fun. but they militantly insist on being hairless. Why? Young women are not in danger of being mistaken for infertile. 

[M.2]

I agree this is a uniquely interesting thread to begin with.

First off, when you are talking about leg hair, I assume you are talking about those you see in your area of the world.  If you go to Korea, women naturally don't have any body hair, whereas if you go to Armenia, things are a bit on the other end of the spectrum. I think whites are somehere in the middle, as there are some who have hair that is hardly visible, and others that are hairy as some men.

Hairlessness is an indicator of female hormonal balance, which men find naturally attractive.

[shirgall]

2 hours ago, RamynKing said:

A young woman has little need for makeup...

As a father, telling this to one's daughter never works. I feel like everyone wears makeup to look 16 no matter what their age is.

[Jsbrads]

Perhaps a minimum of leg hair signals low testosterone and therefore, healthy genetics paired with no prior history of birthing male babies to competing males... which may signal more availability. 

[aviet]

I think the evolutionary biology arguments above are valid and operate on a deep, unconscious and primordial level that most people will never be aware of. But I think the largest theme at play is people's need or want to get things they value. Firstly people value their survival: food, water, shelter etc. The more of the hierarchy of needs that are sated the more people will opt to expend their time/resources on more abstract or luxury goals like being smoking hot, feeling good about one's self by virtue signaling, achieving goals in a hobby, being in the top 10 at Call of Duty etc. A woman extracts value from shaving her legs and otherwise looking beautiful because it gets her positive attention and likely better access to high-status males. If she struggled to provide herself food, she would likely care little about her legs. Shaving legs = feeling better about one's self + being seen better by others. This is confirmed by a study of women's attitudes after 12 weeks of not shaving their legs. The desire to feel good about one's self, I feel, is an underestimated want of humans with an excess of resources. A lot of people also find value in providing value to other people.

As for men, I'd say it's similar they value access to a pair of legs that look feminine and not a pair of burly cankle-terminated thatches. This doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary biology, just a man's desire to have pleasurable things. Access to a good pair of legs will also serve as validation, just as women feel validated by the attention such legs will bring.

If you don't care if a woman has hairy legs then I suspect you have some sort of philosophical override that makes you value, say, time saved in improving one's appearance or a negative view of the mental states behind physical self-improvement.

Personally, I much prefer hair-free and if I was paired off I would look to pay for permanent removal to save them having to put in the time manually removing. The reason is I find it looks attractive (pleasure) and find hairy legs repulsive and masculine (evolutionary biology).

I also like to stay in better than average physical condition myself. There are a few reasons: I don't like the feel of excess body-weight, the look of clumsy body curvature etc - this is a personal reason; I want to provide the value of being physically attractive to a mate - this is driven by a conscious desire to retain the physical sexual market value of my offspring and a desire to provide value to someone I value; I also find value in female interest; and lastly I have a philosophical drive for self-improvement across multiple areas - it's not difficult to have some physical self-respect: a bit of exercise, grooming and shopping. When I see fat slobs, I see people who don't have self respect and are probably in many cases unmotivated in any sphere.

One article I have just come across discusses a club for women who don't shave their legs. I suspect the main theme behind their motives is the same as everything on the left: the desire to extract value from society by being a negative force and utilising negative emotional blackmail, particularly guilt to re-shape society around the celebration and value of weakness and being a cry baby. You may disrespect people into physical self improvement, but at least they try and extract value from society by providing people in it with something they value, beauty. As opposed to the left, who seek to extract value by demanding value for being a negative force:

Fat is beautiful
Free tuition, forgive student debt
Feeling good about one's self by virtue signaling
Unconditional state welfare
Free abortions and contraceptives
Economic success based on identity

Nothing the left do ever works. It always ends up destroying itself, as they seek to build society around weakness and force in the pursuit of the fruits of strength and voluntary exchange. The left can be described by this equation:

-1 != 1

In the case of virtue signaling, it is my strong belief that it is done for the sole purpose of trying to feel good about one's self and that virtue signalers don't actually care about the causes they break into a melodrama about. In fact I think they desire them as it gives them an excuse for their unconscious evolutionary biological survival method: extracting value from society for nothing; among other reasons. But as with all of the attempts of leftists, virtue signaling fails and causes depression, as it's the pursuit of something (feeling good) without providing the required value to be able to feel good about yourself. Just as anti-depressants don't cure the psycho-emotional causes of depression, virtue signaling doesn't cure being a selfish person pretending to be selfless.

[Jsbrads]

I don't know this for fact, but as women grow hair (usually much less than men) a woman who has very little hair should create no negative impression from an evolutionary standpoint.

There may be cultural preference, i.e. social pressure (fairly mild).

Or a desire for a relatively younger looking women, less hair. 

[RamynKing]

Revisiting this thread after my thoughts have stewed a bit...

A young, healthy woman in a full long dress still exudes all the qualities necessary to fulfill ALL of a man's evolutionary physical desires.
If a man doesn't notice that this covered-up woman is still young and healthy, he isn't very competitive. Plenty of better men will be able to go behind him and scoop her up, knowing full well that the sex will be great once that dress is off, and she will be fertile, and bear strong offspring. If there's some bothersome hair, it can be dealt with in the course of the marriage.
(Not talking about virtue here, to be clear. Virtue should ultimately be the larger slice of the qualities pie.)

Therefore, if a woman has to present as more hairless, it points to R-selection. She's got to uncover her body and advertise sexual availability with exposed skin, and yea, that exposed skin will probably look more presentable if shaved. If she's using the body as a lure, she's breaking abstinence solidarity, destroying the institution of marriage and all the rest. Shifting society away from k-selection. None of this is new, I've just added leg hair into the mix.

I think a big stumbling point on this topic is that a lot of people on the right also buy into the mainstream beauty paradigm, and get defensive when their own decisions are challenged. The mainstream is R-selection. We have to try and turn it around in every way we can, and this is part of it.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

48 minutes ago, RamynKing said:

Revisiting this thread after my thoughts have stewed a bit...

A young, healthy woman in a full long dress still exudes all the qualities necessary to fulfill ALL of a man's evolutionary physical desires.
If a man doesn't notice that this covered-up woman is still young and healthy, he isn't very competitive. Plenty of better men will be able to go behind him and scoop her up, knowing full well that the sex will be great once that dress is off, and she will be fertile, and bear strong offspring. If there's some bothersome hair, it can be dealt with in the course of the marriage.

I don't have to look far to find EXTREMELY hot and fertile women like Uldouz Wallace who exemplify "better wrapped up than unwrapped"--I think if anything the wrapping itself can be an r-selection vs. K-selection signal. Women like Wallace would have a hard time not attracting men simply because...well, bing/google/yandex her to see why. 

Appearance-wise I'd argue K-selection isn't easily found because women who aren't downright ugly (like obese or with a monstrous face) are always  at least a little attractive regardless of what they wear. Factor in kinks and some guys value hose, blouse, and pencil skirt over tight tube dresses or skimpy shorts and crop tops. 

Maybe those kinks have a "selection" value--perhaps being attracted to "classy" styles like the blouse + long/pencil skirt combo is more K while the crop top and shorts is more r. Or, they're all fundamentally r because they only give an appearance which implies personality rather than demonstrates it.

However, contradicting myself, I think K-r can be reasonably discerned visually. Perhaps a K-selected woman is, in appearance, someone who cares about what they look like to ensure they appear well-put and self-disciplined but not so much that they are basically boner magnets. 

However again, there are limits. A woman who doesn't care at all about appearance would most likely lack self-discipline (by being fat for example) and would most likely have all sorts of negative traits by association (neurotic, possessive, etc.) while a woman who cares too much (to the point where they look sculpted and carved out to be boner magnets) could be too vain, superficial, and perhaps downright stating visually that their mating strategy is to trap a man with their hotness and then rape him of what he's worth when she can't seduce him any more.

Therefore I think K-selection is a balance of the two extremes; neither ugly (unless by genetic misfortune, such as an ugly face or bow-leggedness etc. etc.), nor insanely hot but rather a "right" amount of hot which requires a fair amount of self-discipline and implies both a willingness to please a man physically (but not so much that that's all she's worth) while still having time to spare to invest in more intellectual and spiritual pursuits, and/or practical stuff like housekeeping, cooking, or whatever professional thing she's doing.

Basically a K-selected appearance would be the girl who wears stylish clothes that aren't too provocative but attractive enough to please a fiance and signal self-confidence and a self-love.

...Yet again though, I'm not too sure. Beauty is much more important to a woman than a man after all. And lots of traits, both good and bad, are signaled by an excess or shortage of beauty. And natural beauty is tricky in its own right since having a lot of it might be r because Daddy preferred the hottie but also K because Daddy might be a millionaire businessman.

48 minutes ago, RamynKing said:

(Not talking about virtue here, to be clear. Virtue should ultimately be the larger slice of the qualities pie.)

Therefore, if a woman has to present as more hairless, it points to R-selection. She's got to uncover her body and advertise sexual availability with exposed skin, and yea, that exposed skin will probably look more presentable if shaved. If she's using the body as a lure, she's breaking abstinence solidarity, destroying the institution of marriage and all the rest. Shifting society away from k-selection. None of this is new, I've just added leg hair into the mix.

I think you're over-reading hairiness versus hairlessness. If anything having too much hair is r selected because rabbits will screw anything while wolves will only mate with the best. I think it far more often for high quality (resource-wise) men to mate with high quality (character + body) women than with lesser (only body or only character) women and for high quality women to select other high quality men rather than settle for less. 

However character trumps beauty and the power of beauty can corrupt and lead to men/women being more r-selected than they otherwise would be, making the signal itself being not much to go on. No/less hair can be good since it's more attractive and therefore implies a better gene (k-selected) pool, but it can also be the luck of the genetic lottery that a pair of rabbits managed to pop out a hot she-wolf instead of another plain rabbit.

Or I'm way off and still in grade school as far as beauty and selection goes.

I just think that top-tier alphas (body + character) would pursue other top-tier alphas rather than settle for only body or only character.

48 minutes ago, RamynKing said:

I think a big stumbling point on this topic is that a lot of people on the right also buy into the mainstream beauty paradigm, and get defensive when their own decisions are challenged. The mainstream is R-selection. We have to try and turn it around in every way we can, and this is part of it.

I'd rather look good and be good at the same time. Of course I prefer character over body, but that doesn't mean I'm going to select against beauty if all else is equal (although admittedly all else is seldom equal unless one happens to be a lucky or self-made top tier alpha).

[barn]

 

Hi @shirgall

On 09/30/2017 at 5:42 PM, shirgall said:

As a father, telling this to one's daughter never works. I feel like everyone wears makeup to look 16 no matter what their age is.

 

What success have you seen with the

'distorted reality draws those closer who seek fakery and it's consequences '

argument?

additional: Sure, looking after oneself and occasional, reasonable boosts down to social events, interviews. (As in no one assumes ppl wear suit and ties all the time.)

Regards,

Barnsley

[barn]

On 10/10/2017 at 9:53 PM, RamynKing said:

Therefore, if a woman has to present as more hairless, it points to R-selection. She's got to uncover her body and advertise sexual availability with exposed skin, and yea, that exposed skin will probably look more presentable if shaved. If she's using the body as a lure, she's breaking abstinence solidarity, destroying the institution of marriage and all the rest. Shifting society away from k-selection. None of this is new, I've just added leg hair into the mix.

I think so too. (non argument :-p)

Furthermore I particularly think this is a very good point you are making (would up your whole comment here as a whole but can't, yet...)

On 10/10/2017 at 9:53 PM, RamynKing said:

If there's some bothersome hair, it can be dealt with in the course of the marriage.

Which is the same as staying fit for your wife from the men's perspective as it's a ROMANTIC relationship but based on virtues.

Have a good one,

Barnsley

[marias]

As for me, I think a woman had to do things, which are primarily comfortable for her. If she likes hairy legs, why not? It's our life and we must live how we want. No matter who we are.

[RichardY]

 

[Jsbrads]

Of course anyone can do as they please, they just have to live with the consequences.